Gas Box Exhaust Design Modification for Accidental Hazardous Gas Releases in Semiconductor Industry

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents the experimental analysis of optimal shape of gas box for semiconductor manufacturing. The experiment results provide some helpful suggestions for gas box design. My comments are as follows:

1) The designing parameters in terms of gas box should be first explained in some qualitative way;

2) The selection of gas type, process condition,  rate calculation method, gas box size should have some theoretical support or literature references.

3) More figures are recommended for result analysis in Fig.6 and Fig.7.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comment.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. In response to your comment, Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend the paper for publication with minor revision.

This study aimed to optimize a gas box design for semiconductor manufacturing to improve worker safety during gas leaks. A 0.21 m³ gas box was constructed, and a tracer gas was released to measure concentrations at various points. Without an air inlet, gas levels reached 33,236 ppm, exceeding safety limits, and carbon monoxide concentrations were over four times the TWA. While single-direction air intake reduced internal gas levels, it still posed risks outside the box. Bidirectional air intake successfully maintained safe gas concentrations. The findings provide recommendations for gas box design and inform regulatory guidelines to enhance safety in handling hazardous substances.

1. In the abstract, LEL and TWA are first mentioned here, the author should use the full name with abbreviation.

2. Fig 6 and 7's legends should mention that the straight red line is the allowed safety value.

What is the main question addressed by the research?

 

The main question addressed by the research is how to optimize the exhaust design of gas boxes in semiconductor manufacturing to prevent fire explosions and toxic exposure during accidental gas leaks. The study specifically investigates the effects of different air intake ratios on the concentration of hazardous gases, particularly carbon monoxide, in both the gas box and the surrounding environment.

However, more tests with different control variables and conditions should be conducted since “optimal exhaust design” is mentioned in the abstract. Based on the content of this paper, “optimal” should not use here, only a very limited designs are tested in this paper.

For the last sentence, the aim is too big considering the very limited content in this paper. The author should refine the aim into a smaller scope.

 

Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.

 

Yes, the topic is both original and highly relevant to the field of semiconductor manufacturing and occupational safety. Like I mentioned before, more test with different control variables and conditions should be conducted.

It addresses a specific gap regarding the design standards for gas boxes, particularly concerning the air intake mechanisms that can influence gas dispersion and worker safety. Previous studies have focused on safety standards for flammable gases, but there is limited research on the specific design methods for air intakes in gas boxes that handle both flammable and toxic gases. This study contributes to the development of safety protocols and design standards that can enhance worker safety in semiconductor facilities.

 

What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

 

This research adds good amount of value to the subject area, only for providing empirical data on the effects of air intake ratios on gas concentrations during leaks. Like I mentioned in previous question, author should provide more testing date with different control variables and conditions.

Unlike previous studies, which may have focused on theoretical models or specific gas types, this study employs a practical experimental setup that simulates real-world conditions in semiconductor manufacturing. The findings can inform the development of standardized guidelines for gas box design, which is currently lacking in the industry.

 

What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

 

While the methodology is robust, the authors could consider the following improvements:

- Increased Sample Size: Conducting more trials with varying conditions (e.g., different gas types, temperatures, and pressures) could enhance the reliability of the results.

- Long-term Monitoring: Implementing a long-term monitoring system for gas concentrations could provide insights into the effectiveness of the exhaust design over time.

- Control Variables: Additional controls, such as varying the flow rates of the exhaust system or testing different duct sizes, could help to further isolate the effects of air intake on gas concentrations.

 

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.

 

The conclusions drawn are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The study effectively demonstrates that an air intake ratio (50% in both directions) can prevent fire explosions and toxic exposure, thus confirming that proper exhaust design is crucial for safety. The findings align with the main question posed, providing a clear rationale for the recommended design standards.

Are the references appropriate?

Yes

Any additional comments on the tables and figures.

Fig 3 caption, what does “Testing appearance” mean?

Fig 1 caption, delete “for” and change to “(image copied from Swagelok website)”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in this paper is good and smooth to read.

Author Response

Thank you for pointing this out. In response to your comment, Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf